The world's favourite airline

[JOEYSHABADO]

OK...BA flight from LA to LHR has engine problem just after take off, sparks seen flying from exhaust. Tower notifies pilot. Pilot flies around a bit taking advice from BA London, who say 'just carry on to London'. Pilot does so, but can only reach 28000 ft (due to missing engine?). Lack of 1 engine causes inefficiencies which means that he almost runs out of fuel, has to Mayday, and lands in Manchester.
He didn't maybe: want to ditch 100 tonns of fuel over USA/Atlantic, to land in USA, but maybe could have gone to Chicago. I know this was a few days after the 'refund' announcement, but I don't quite buy that argument. They say the 'interests of the passengers' is paramount...presumably 'not hanging around LAX'.
I AM REALLY WORRIED ABOUT THIS. My question is...how can an airline take this RISK (not having enough fuel for a transatlantic journey). They MUST know how a plane operates with an engine missing. They MUST know the fuel tolerances. And yet they went ahead???? A few more mph headwind and that plane's in the brink. Am I the only one who sees this?????Argh!

[Clanad]

As a pilot for many years, I would say there just has to be more to this story.  Regardless of what Maintenance Control or Dispatch says, the pilot is still in command of the aircraft and I have never known of a pilot that would fly any aircraft from LAX to London with an engine inoperative, especially one that failed "just after take-off". Not only that, but, at least in the U.S. it would be a gross violation of Regulations prompting a revocation of the pilot certificate and a massive fine for the airline. I'm certainly not questioning your understanding of the event, but there are just to many inexplicable holes in your narrative to address it sufficiently...

[JOEYSHABADO]

thanks for the answer, Clanad, but I have stated the events as they were reported in the Times.
If there's anyone else who has read the article and can offer some suggestions, please?

[JOEYSHABADO]

The pilot deferred to judgement of the control centre in London. The plane flew transatlantic with one engine inoperative. The engine went inoperative just shortly after take-off.
There aren't holes in my narrative. They took the decision to fly the plane to the UK after an engine went out. It's well documented. It was very dangerous: they nearly ran out of fuel, they placed a mayday and did not believe they could land it at destination. Does anyone know, based on the reported and confirmed evidence (above) what makes them decide to fly a plane back (or think it is safe to do so) when it is not in fact safe to do so. Hundreds could easily have been killed.

[JOEYSHABADO]

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Librar y/rgFAR.nsf/0/0BD913C7B
5E8AA56852566EF006D98DB?OpenDocument

Didn't he break the rules? Not enough fuel!

[Clanad]

Please understand, Impostor, I had no intention of qustioning your veracity.  It was just that the action appeared to have been so completely out of bounds that I felt there had to be more to it.  Apparently, the event happened last Sunday.  There is a web site that many pilots subscribe to for every rumor that ever existed concerning flying.  There is an extensive thread on that site.  There's a lot of jargon, but perhaps it will help you understand the nature of events such as this.

http://www.pprune.com/forums/showthread.php?s=c1fb47d6e95a0b6aa4c80bed4388f7b0&threadid=164208&perpage=15&pagenumber=1

That's a long address and, if for some reason you can't access that just use the first part, www.pprune.com and scroll down the right hand coumn for the thread.

Good luck!

[lDIOTIC]

Thanks for that, Clanad. The only problem is that due to the way AB works, a once-answered question is often ignored by people, I think. The flight prob was well documented. I guess it was surprising because it was unusual. But if it is true, can you answer it then? how would it happen? Did the pilot just miscalculate?? Have they not tested for such an eventuality properly?

[lDIOTIC]

What's PAN? And don't these posters realize they're breaking the law by listening in on private radio transmissions?

[Clanad]

A couple of things, Idiotic... firstly PAN is an internatinally recognized radio call indicating an urgent onboard condition, but short of the call Mayday.  Secondly, in the U.S. at least, a a radio scanner for aviation frequencies is not illegal.  Transmitting on one of these frequencies is illegal, but lots of people make a hobby of listening to such communications.

I can only say that, having flown for 3 different airlines, two of which conducted oceanic crossings, that the training and operations manuals as well as the company culture required landing at the first appropriate airport in this type of situation.  As you can see from the website, flight in a 4 engine aircraft with one inoperative is not unusual and I can see where some extended flight would be permissable and safe.  However, recognizing that I wasn't the pilot in command, I wouldn't have made the same decisions.  Flight Level (FL) 280 (28,000 feet above Mean Sea Level) is a fuel guzzling altitude for jet engines and to park ones rear end in a seat strapped to a plane load of human cargo would not have been a choice that I would have allowed Dispatch or Maintenance Control to make for me. But BA does have an admirable safety record.... so far...

[JOEYSHABADO]

Thanks, Clanad.
I think something subsequent to the engine blow out (maybe CONSEQUENT to the engine blowout ) occurred after Shannon and Prestwick were options. People are talking of maybe a blocked fuel valve related to the damaged engine. But this happens. The reason I differ from other postings on those farc sites is that I think that because blocked fuel valves can happen, you want to fly with as safe a plane as poss. A 4 engine plane is designed to fly with 4 engines, not 3. So the pilot goes 'It was ALL SAFE until we got that fuel valve damage!"...don't make ME LAUGH! Accident, by definition, is an unexpected event! You make things as safe as possible because accidents can happen, you don't use them as an excuse not to!
How do passengers relate to the risk of flying? I know it's a low risk....but if that flight gets a lot riskier when you're onboard...shouldn't you have a right to know? How many passengers, if told, ok, we've lost an engine, it blew up in a sea of sparks, and wouldn't stop overheating, we don't know how much damage it did to fuel lines or the valves, but we're going to start crossing the atlantic now, because it's probably safe. What would they say? They'd elect to sit tight and wait for a better plane.

[stevie21]

A 4 engined plane is well capable of flying safely on 3 engines. I think you should give the airplane designers a bit more credit for building some safety into their design.

[zebra0704]

The pilot actually did not take any risk. that is why he diverted to manchester. 747s can safely fly with 2 out of 4 engines with no risk to passengers at all. they are designed to cope with that. a return to lax would have meant dumping a lot of fuel and a very long delay as the crew would have to nightstop after returning to lax. same situation if diverting to chicago. no benefit at all compared to going to manchester.